Delhi High Court

A.P.T. Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravi Vashishta on 24 December, 2010

Author: Veena Birbal

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                      Judgment delivered on :December 24, 2010

+     W.P.(C) No. 16984/2006


A.P.T. PNEUMATICS PVT. LTD.                  ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Jay Savla with Mr. Pravin Sharma,
                           Advocates

                            -versus-

RAVI VASHISHTA                                         ..... Respondents
                       Through:     Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. By way of this petition, petitioner/management has challenged

the impugned award dated 01.07.2006 by which the Labour Court

has awarded relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages along

with continuity of service and other legal benefits to respondent.

2. As per the case of petitioner/management, respondent was

working as a Marketing Engineer in the Delhi office of

petitioner/management. It is alleged that during the course of

employment, respondent committed certain acts of misconduct and

therefore he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated

23.06.2000. An enquiry was conducted by the

petitioner/management and thereafter the respondent was removed

from the service vide order dated 12.08.2000. Thereafter,

respondent raised the industrial dispute. The Secretary (Labour),

Government of NCT of Delhi referred the same for adjudication to

the Labour Court with the following terms of reference :

"Whether the services of Shri Ravi Vashist have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. Pursuant thereto respondent filed a statement of claim before

the Labour Court alleging therein that he had been working with the

management from 01.07.1998 on the post of Marketing Engineer.

Respondent along with other employees made a complaint to the

petitioner/management against Shri Vivek Kamboj, Regional

Manager. Thereafter, management turned hostile and vindictive

and started harassing the petitioner and the said Vivek Kamboj also

made a complaint against the petitioner and against one Guru Dutt

and Ajay Prasad on 19.06.2000 and an FIR was registered against

them. On 20.06.2000, the respondent as well as the aforesaid two

workers were suspended and on 23.06.2000, a charge sheet was

issued to him which was duly replied and thereafter Enquiry Officer

was appointed. It is stated that no notice was given and ex parte

enquiry was conducted and respondent was removed from service

on 12.08.2000.

4. Petitioner/management filed a written statement before the

Labour Court wherein the allegations made by the respondent was

denied and it was categorically stated that in case of vitiation of

domestic enquiry conducted against the respondent/workman, the

management be given an opportunity to prove the alleged

misconduct before it by leading evidence and that the respondent

was a "Sales Engineer" and was not covered under the definition of

workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The issues were initially

framed by the Labour Court on 5.12.2003. On 6.09.2005, issues

were amended. In all the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether management conducted enquiry fairly, legally and according to the principles of natural justice? OPM

2. Whether workman does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under Section (2)s of I.D. Act? OPM

3. To what relief, if any, is the Workman entitled from the Management in terms of reference?"

5. As noted in the impugned award, issue no. 1 was treated as a

preliminary issue. On 28.03.2006, the enquiry issue was decided

against the petitioner/management and in favour of workman. The

grievance of the petitioner/management is that after deciding the

issue of enquiry against the petitioner, the Labour Court passed the

impugned award dated 01.07.2006 by observing that the

management has not taken any plea in the written statement

seeking opportunity to lead evidence in the event of vitiation of

enquiry and as such granted reinstatement to the respondent with

50% back wages.

6. Aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition is filed.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the written

statement filed before the Labour Court, a categorical stand has

been taken that fair opportunity has been given to the respondent

to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and if the court arrives

at a finding that the enquiry was not fair, the management seeks

liberty to prove the charges of misconduct before this court. It is

contended that despite having taken a specific stand in the written

statement/reply, the Labour Court has not given any opportunity to

petitioner/management of leading evidence before it to prove the

alleged charges of misconduct. It is contended that the Labour

Court failed to read the written statement and after deciding the

issue of enquiry against the petitioner/management passed the

impugned award observing that the management has not taken

plea in the written statement seeking opportunity to lead evidence

before the Court in case enquiry is vitiated as such passed the

award against the management. It is contended that failure on the

part of the Labour Court to read the written statement filed by it and

thereby depriving the petitioner/management of its valuable right to

lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct before Court is a non

application of mind, as such the impugned award is liable to be set

aside.

8. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent/workman is

that after enquiry issue was decided on 28.03.2006, the

management did not appear before the court nor appraised that

such a stand as stated above, has been taken in the written

statement and as such the impugned award is legal and valid in all

respects and does not call for any interference.

10. I have considered the submissions made and perused the

material on record.

11. Vide orders dated 28th March, 2006, the Labour Court has

held that the management has failed to establish that enquiry

conducted against the workman was fair and as such, decided the

said issue in favour of workman. Thereafter, the Labour Court

listed the matter for final arguments. The Labour Court also noted

in the order dated 28th March, 2006 that the management has not

taken any plea in the written statement to lead evidence before

court in case enquiry is vitiated.

I have perused the written statement on record. There is

categorical stand in the written statement that if the court arrives at

a finding that the inquiry was not fair, the management seeks

liberty to prove the charges of misconduct before this court. The

relevant portion of the written statement/reply is reproduced which

is as under:-

"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Management places reliance upon the record of the inquiry and shall prove the same. However if this court arrives at a finding that the inquiry was not fair the Management seeks liberty to prove the charges of misconduct before this court."

In view of the categorical averment in the written statement,

the finding of the Labour Court in the impugned award that the

management has not taken any plea in the written statement/reply

seeking opportunity to lead evidence in the event of vitiation of

enquiry, is an apparent error on record. In these circumstances, the

Labour Court ought to have listed the matter for leading evidence

by the management to prove alleged misconduct before the court

as per the settled law. Reference in this regard is made to (i) The

Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd Vs.

The Management & others 1973 (1) LLJ 278; (ii) Karnataka State

Road Transport Corpn Vs Lakshmidevamma AIR 2001 sc 2090; (iii)

Amrit Vanaspati Co.Ltd Vs Khem Chand & Anr 2006 (6) SCC 325 &